Digest:Provided that the judge otherwise complies with the Rules Governing
Judicial Conduct, he/she may join and make use of an Internet-based
social network. A judge choosing to do so should exercise an appropriate
degree of discretion in how he/she uses the social network and should
stay abreast of the features of any such service he/she uses as new
developments may impact his/her duties under the Rules.

A judge received an e-mail inviting him/her to join an online “social network”
and inquires whether it is appropriate for him/her to accept that offer and
participate.

Social networks, as they are commonly known, are Internet-based meeting
places where users with similar interests and backgrounds can communicate with each
other. Users create their own personal website – a profile page - with information
about themselves that is available for other users to see. Users can establish
“connections” with other users allowing increased access to each other’s profile,
including, in many cases, the ability to contact any connections the other user has and
to comment on material posted on each other’s pages.

Although they vary in certain specific details, social networks generally allow
users to reconnect with friends and family, discuss common interests, share
photographs, and play games with each other. Other social networks, such as the one
at issue in this inquiry, are more business-oriented in nature, with an almost-exclusive
focus on professional networking and sharing of business-related information. The
social network at issue would allow the judge to join an online community and
interact with lawyers and litigants among many other users.

There are multiple reasons why a judge might wish to be a part of a social
network: reconnecting with law school, college, or even high school classmates;
increased interaction with distant family members; staying in touch with former
colleagues; or even monitoring the usage of that same social network by minor
children in the judge’s immediate family.

The Committee cannot discern anything inherently inappropriate about a judge
joining and making use of a social network. A judge generally may socialize in person
with attorneys who appear in the judge’s court, subject to the Rules Governing
Judicial Conduct (the “Rules”) (see Opinion 07-141). Moreover, the Committee has
not opined that there is anything per seunethical about communicating using other
forms of technology, such as a cell phone or an Internet web page (see e.g. Opinion
07-135 [permitting use of a website in a judge’s campaign for office]). Thus, the
question is not whether a judge can use a social network but, rather, how he/she does
so.

The Rules require that a judge must avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all of the judge’s activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and shall act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). Similarly, a judge shall conduct all of the
judge’s extra-judicial activities so that they do not detract from the dignity of judicial
office (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][2]).

What a judge posts on his/her profile page or on other users’ pages could
potentially violate the Rules in several ways. The Committee has, for example,
advised that a court should not provide a link on its web page to an advocacy group
for Megan’s Law which listed the names and counties of residence for registered sex
offenders (see Opinion 01-14 [Vol. XIX]; but see Opinion 07-135 [permissible to
provide link to newspaper articles on judge’s website, provided that they are
dignified, truthful, and not misleading]). A judge should thus recognize the public
nature of anything he/she places on a social network page and tailor any postings
accordingly.

The judge also should be mindful of the appearance created when he/she
establishes a connection with an attorney or anyone else appearing in the judge’s
court through a social network. In some ways, this is no different from adding the
person’s contact information into the judge’s Rolodex or address book or speaking to
them in a public setting. But, the public nature of such a link (i.e., other users can
normally see the judge’s friends or connections) and the increased access that the
person would have to any personal information the judge chooses to post on his/her
own profile page establish, at least, the appearance of a stronger bond. A judge
must, therefore, consider whether any such online connections, alone or in
combination with other facts, rise to the level of a “close social relationship”
requiring disclosure and/or recusal (compare Opinion 07-141 with Opinion 06-149).

Further, other users of the social network, upon learning of the judge’s
identity, may informally ask the judge questions about or seek to discuss their cases,
or seek legal advice. As is true in face-to-face meetings, a judge may not engage in
these communications. The Rules bar all judges from commenting publicly on pending
or impending matters (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]). Likewise, a full-time judge may
not practice law and can only act pro seor give uncompensated advice to a family
member (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[G]). Part-time judges, to the extent permitted to
practice law (see 22 NYCRR 100.6[B]), should be mindful of the public nature of
communications via social networks.

The guidance set forth above is, and can only be, a non-exhaustive list of issues
that judges using social networks should consider. The Committee urges all judges
using social networks to, as a baseline, employ an appropriate level of prudence,
discretion and decorum in how they make use of this technology, above and beyond
what is specifically described above. It is not difficult to find many mainstream news
reports regarding negative consequences and notoriety for social network users who
used social networks haphazardly (see e.g. Helen A.S. Popkin, Twitter Gets You Fired
In 140 Characters Or Less, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29796962/ [March 23,
2009, accessed April 10, 2009] [discussing dangers of postings about workplace on
social networks]); Facebook Post Gets Worker Fired,
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3965039 [March 9, 2009, accessed April
10, 2009] [discussing termination of NFL team employee for criticizing a player
personnel move on Facebook]).

Finally, the Committee is also aware that the functions and resources available
on, and technology behind, social networks rapidly change. Neither this opinion, nor
any future opinion the Committee could offer, can accurately predict how these
technologies will change and, accordingly, affect judges’ responsibilities under the
Rules. Thus, judges who use social networks consistent with the guidance in this
opinion should stay abreast of new features of, and changes to, any social networks
they use and, to the extent those features present further ethics issues not addressed
above, consult the Committee for further guidance.